White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards

Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that the Obama administration has signed off on the nation's first rules on greenhouse gas emissions and set new fuel standards to meet a fleet-wide average of 35.5 mpg that will raise current standards by nearly 10 mpg by the 2016 model year. Although the new requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, drivers could save as much as $3,000 over the life of a vehicle through better gas mileage, according to a government statement. 'We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Dave McCurdy, leader of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, says the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles. 'Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond.' As the auto industry seeks to emerge from ashes, many manufacturers already are trying for the right mix of approaches, experts say. Some will try to sell more hybrids. Others are introducing not-so-gas-guzzling SUVs. They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta."

Comments

So what about trucks?

[Chemisor]

So what if I want to buy a truck? A Dodge Ram 2500 averages around 17mpg, and there ain't no way you're getting it to 35. Is Obama so mad at Scott Brown that he's going to make sure that nobody can buy a truck? I'd really like to see him demonstrate how to haul a ton of manure in a Prius. Really, Mr.President, let's see how you do it!

Re:So what about trucks?

[gothzilla]

You don't get it. You don't get to choose what kind of car you drive anymore. That liberty was taken from you a long time ago. You will drive what the government says you can drive.

Re:So what about trucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fleet average. Most people don't buy trucks, and most of the people in SUVs don't need anything that large. ...

Wow, you should be in government. The Obama administration needs even more folks like you who know what folks really need more than they themselves do... you could guide them to making the "correct" decisions and perhaps gently cudgel them away from wrong thinking, save them from themselves, you know.

More deaths

[elgee]

Lighter and much less sturdy cars will lead to perhaps 10,000 more deaths per year.

Re:More deaths

[sexconker]

For survivability you don't want "sturdyness", you want the car to be crumply. The crumpling absorbs the crash energy so the occupants don't. Lighter cars also means lower crash energies. Lighter cars are less likely to crash in the first place owing to better handling and manuverablilty.

Crumply? Then make the bodies out of cardboard. Surely that would be safe!

Too soft and your material doesn't reduce the impact the people feel. Too hard and you have the same problem. (Ideally hard and you go right through the obstacle, feeling nothing.)

There's a a compromise to be had, and they've passed it long ago - they're way past "crumple zones = safety" now.

Lighter = less momentum, sure, but it also means less control. Better maneuverability is nice if you're driving a race car, but the average motorist will never be able to maneuver out of the way in an emergency. Better handling is subjective, and I vastly prefer the feel of a heavier vehicle. The loss of stability due to the car being lighter is more dangerous than the increase in momentum due to the car being heavier.

Re:More deaths

[khallow]

Until those who are driving around overweight behemoths are made to pay for their huge negative externalities.

I don't see a case for making heavy vehicles paying for this externality when it is created by the drivers of lightweight cars.

Re:More deaths

[sexconker]

Lighter cars grip the road less. Simple fact.
Yes, SUVs tip over. Because they're badly designed.

Re:and?

[Alarindris]

Considering that cars are one of the few products that are still manufactured in the US, I'd say it could be a bad thing. A country that thinks that it can survive on imports without making anything itself is going to get exactly what it deserves: bankrupcy.

It'll only accelerate the inevitable... a country that thinks it can survive by producing shitty products that get 1/2 the mileage, and 1/2 the mpg of imports gets it exactly what it deserves.

shiT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

real pro3leMs that

Re:Social engineering is evil

[onyxruby]

Reality check here for anonymous coward. The top 16 ships put out as much pollution as all of the worlds cars combined. Shipping is incredibly pollution heavy (I never said inefficient, read carefully next time) and cleaning that up would reap far more benefit for the environment than we could ever do by magically replaced every car on the planet with a prius.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?

No. Why do you think it would?

"OMG! New cars are more fuel efficient! I don't want to risk having one of those! ..."

No. I can't imagine very many consumers avoiding a purchase for such a reason.

Is it the cost increase of $434-926 that you are afraid of?

That is a fraction of the total cost of a new car. Even cheap cars are over 20k these days. The average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400

Re:Social engineering is evil

[geekoid]

"Social engineering is evil"

That is incredible stupid. It doesn't even make much sense.Your post indicates that you actually don't mind these laws, you just want them pointed a garbage trucks.

While cleaing all vehicles is a good idea, you statement about social engineering is just plain nonsense.

Re:and?

[Kral_Blbec]

I had a witty, insightful reply all written up. Then I noticed your sig and realized you're one of those socialist, progressive idiots.

I hate socialism.